Conceptions of evidence use in school districts: Mapping the terrain

Current policies place unprecedented demands on districts to use evidence to guide their educational improvement efforts. How districts respond is likely to be influenced by how individuals in the district conceptualize what it means to use evidence in their ongoing work. This study draws on sensemaking and institutional theory to investigate how individuals in one urban school district conceive of evidence-based practice. The study develops grounded typologies that describe the ways that individuals conceptualize high-quality evidence, ap-propriate evidence use, and high-quality research. It then explains variation in conceptions, pointing to the ways organizational responsibilities and reform history shape how individuals come to understand evidence-based practice. The article closes by suggesting implications for district response to federal policy demands for evidence-based practice. In recent years, education policies have placed unprecedented demands on districts to use “evidence ” to ground their improvement efforts. In particular, the No Child Left Behind Act (2002) has significantly raised the profile and the stakes of both research and student achievement data. In order to receive Title 1 funds, districts must show that curriculum adoption, instructional pro-grams, professional development, and other forms of support to schools are rooted in “scientifically based research. ” In addition, schools are required to collect and analyze standardized test data and use them as a basis for decisions related to school improvement. Available research suggests that district leaders embrace this vision of evidence-based educational improvement. In a national survey of superintendents con-ducted by Education Week during summer 2005,1 respondents consistently em-phasized the use of data to guide decisions as the most important strategy fo